153 Cal. App. 2d 613 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1957
In a nonjury trial defendant was convicted of having committed abortion on three occasions in that he did unlawfully provide and supply medicine, drugs, and sub
Diana Speer testified that in July 1955 she was pregnant ; she had no illness; defendant came to her home on four occasions—on July 28, 29, 30, and 31, 1955; on the first occasion defendant asked her how long she had been pregnant; she replied, eight weeks; defendant performed an abortion; she paid him $250; nothing happened that night; defendant returned the next morning; he told her she probably had lost the medication; he again performed an abortion; she asked him if she could refer anyone to him; the next day she telephoned defendant and told him she was very ill; he came to her home; he told her he had been “doing it for 30 years” and had had quite a few flare-ups, he would clean her out again and “then everything would be probably okeh then”; he then went through the same procedure as before; defendant visited her again the next day and went through the same procedure. Mrs. Speer further testified that three days later she was very ill, “had large clots and a lot of blood,” had a temperature of 102, and went to her own doctor, Dr. Manuele, who sent her to the hospital. About a month later defendant telephoned her and asked if she had referred Lynn Siebert to him, and she said, “Yes.”
Mrs. Daisy Petersen, the mother of Mrs. Speer, was living with her. Mrs. Petersen testified she saw defendant arrive on the first occasion he visited Mrs. Speer; he was carrying a roll of something wrapped in brown rubber sheeting; she saw him arrive on the second occasion carrying the same package; Mrs. Speer and defendant entered the bedroom; her daughter did not seem very well; she saw defendant arrive on the third occasion carrying the same package; she asked defendant what made her daughter so ill; defendant told her “not to worry, that she would be all right”; she saw defendant arrive on the fourth occasion; either on this occasion or the previous one she asked defendant why her daughter was so ill, that she was bleeding a lot; defendant told her “that some girls did, that he had done that for 30 years and some did bleed more than others”; she asked defendant if she could refer others girls to him who were in the same predicament; defendant replied yes, so long as they used her name or her daughter’s.
Dr. Manuele testified Mrs. Speer came to his office on
Dr. Leavitt treated Mrs. Speer at General Hospital on August 3, 1955; he was of the opinion that she had ‘ ‘ an incomplete abortion, induced.”
On September 13, 1955, Miss Robinson, an employee of the state medical board, talked to defendant on the pretense she was pregnant and wanted an abortion.
Defendant did not testify.
Upon a trial for procuring an abortion the defendant cannot be convicted upon the testimony of the woman upon whom the offense was committed unless she is corroborated by other evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1108.) The corroborating evidence is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the trier of fact that the witness who must be corroborated is telling the truth. The corroborative evidence must be considered without the aid of the testimony which is to be corroborated, and it is not sufficient if it requires the interpretation and direction of such testimony in order to give it value. (People v. MacEwing, 45 Cal.2d 218, 224-225 [288 P.2d 257], See People v. Goldstein, 136 Cal.App.2d 778 [289 P.2d 581], written by Mr. Justice Ashburn, in which the principles governing the nature and sufficiency of corroborative evidence are learnedly discussed.)
We think the evidence here meets the test. That an abortion was performed on Mrs. Speer was conclusively estab
The fact that defendant did not testify could have been considered by the trial judge as tending to indicate the truth of the testimony of Mrs. Speer and Mrs. Petersen. “While this fact alone does not fill any hiatus in the proof of the prosecution and does not constitute the corroboration required by the statute, it is nevertheless persuasive, lending weight to evidence presented by the prosecution upon matters presumptively within defendant’s knowledge, and which if untruly stated would normally be denied by him.” (People v. Goldstein, 136 Cal.App.2d 778, 790-791 [289 P.2d 581].)
The weight to be given corroborative-evidence is a question for the trier of fact to determine. (People v. McNamara, 103 Cal.App.2d 729, 738 [230 P.2d 411].) The corroboration was sufficient. Considering it without the aid of the testimony of Mrs. Speer, it tends to connect defendant with the commission of the offenses charged in such a way as
Judgment and order affirmed.
Shinn, P. J., and Wood (Parker), J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied September 27, 1957, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 5, 1957. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Defendant was charged in Count IV with having attempted an abortion on Miss Robinson. He was found not guilty of that charge.